Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf <comment><USER2> Police serve themselves and the state, putting their lives well above those they are supposed to serve and protect. I don't think the public's opinion is likely to change until there's some radical reform.

[https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/07/graphic-video- minne...](https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/07/graphic-video-minnesota- police-shooting-philando-castile-ryan-young-pkg- nd.cnn/video/playlists/philando-castile-shot-in-minnesota/)

This officer shot into a car seven times with a little girl on board, murdering a man who was cooperating.

And then he gets off without charge, despite there being video evidence. Where is the justice in that? People aren't that dumb, they aren't being treated fairly and they know it.

According to this study, less than 30% of people believe that police behave lawfully.

<comment><USER3> >Police serve themselves and the state

Just a minor nitpick about this, forgive me. Overall this post is perfectly agreeable.

Police primarily serve private property owners, with private property being different from personal property.

Private property refers to property which earns their owners accumulated wealth: think landlords, business owners and such. Personal property, such as your smartphone or house are intuitively different from this even though things like this are called private property in vernacular.

I think it's a distinction worth posting about since policing as an institution got its start in union busting and slave catching.

<comment><USER4> > I think it's a distinction worth posting about since policing as an > institution got its start in union busting and slave catching.

Do you happen to have a good citation for this, I've heard it several times but am not familiar with any scholarship documenting that connection.

<comment><USER5> it's pure ideology. law enforcing bodies have existed in every complex civilization regardless of slavery.

<comment><USER3> Correct. For the strict purpose of protecting private property, something which slaves were considered to be. Thank you for agreeing with the historical facts.

<comment><USER4> Or the common good, or providing the weak a champion to resist violence had no role in the establishment of institutional policing?

David Friedman has a great summary of how a variety of societies pursue justice and the origins of our own system and comparisons of the systems.

[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_sy...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think many posts in this thread provide valuable commentary and mine won't add as much value, but I'd like to share a viewpoint about how it's interesting that in many countries it's considered quite normal that the police/state are antagonistic to citizens, but in U.S., while the same tension exists, there's a sense of Americans being continually surprised by that fact, as if some sense of idealism partly counteracts the media and acts as a sort of mild denial.

I don't mean to be critical; I'm quite sympathetic.

I grew up in a post-Soviet Bloc country, and while things have definitely changed a lot since 1980s, the mistrust in police and state was still something you could sense. However, that sense of mistrust was dramatically different, because there was no conflicting sense of "it shouldn't be like that". There was a sense of acceptance. Maybe you could call that Soviet defeatism.

The only lesson I can draw from that is that it's easier to look at what's happening in U.S. if you don't presume that the state is your friend.

<comment><USER7> Well, most post-Soviet countries are also not police countries. People there are not used seeing police act much and police using weapons would be a massive news worthy story.

<comment><USER8> Maybe western ones are not, but most coming to my mind are non-free police states - Belarus[1], Tajikistan[2], Kazakhstan[3], Azerbaijan[4], Kyrgyzstan[5], Uzbekistan[6] and so on.

[1] - [https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/belarus](https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/belarus)

[2] - [https://freedomhouse.org/country/tajikistan](https://freedomhouse.org/country/tajikistan)

[3] - [https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/kazakhsta...](https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/kazakhstan)

[4] - [https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/azerbaija...](https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/azerbaijan)

[5] - [https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/kyrgyzsta...](https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/2018/kyrgyzstan)

[6] - [https://freedomhouse.org/country/uzbekistan](https://freedomhouse.org/country/uzbekistan)

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I was hesitating whether to write most. The thing is though, even those non-free states are not as brutal on policing as the US.

<comment><USER8> As someone who lived in Russia first 23 years and now living in US, I can not agree.

US has one of the lowest ratios of police force per capita - 284 officers per 100k citizens [1].

Compare to Belarus - 1442 per 100k citizens and Russia's 515 per 100k.

[1] - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers)

<comment><USER9> I mean, I don't know how many police New Zealand has per capita (I think regarded as the most "free" country) however isn't it more the application of force than the quantity of police?

If they are all directing traffic it's not a police state.

<comment><USER10> They are there to protect the state from the population. Since population doesn't have much means to harm the state, hence police are acting more "mildly", but no way they are doing traffic regulation mostly (in fact I can count on fingers of one hand seeing cops regulating traffic in Belarus)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's interesting seeing the difference between American police and Australian police and how they deal with violent situations.

A couple of weeks ago, we had a terror incident in Melbourne, where a man set his car on fire and started trying to stab people (killing one). The police arrived on scene within seconds, and attempted to stop the attacker using non lethal methods, it was only when it was clear that he wasn't going to be stopped that one of the officers drew their firearm and shot the attacker (apparently only once too, unlike in the USA where they empty their magazine). You can view footage of the incident here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk4su6HSHk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk4su6HSHk)

The officer only used lethal force when it was clear that there was no other option. I don't want to speculate, but I feel like if this was the USA, both officers would've immediately unloaded their magazines into the attacker, possibly hitting bystanders (it's happened plenty of times before).

Compare that to the USA, where an unarmed Australian woman who rang the police to report a possible assault was shot by the police from inside their car: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond)

<comment><USER12> "shot the attacker (apparently only once too, unlike in the USA where they empty their magazine)." I am not sure if you have ever dealt with someone who is a lethal threat to you but it isn't like the movies. A wounded person can still shoot and kill you or stab you. You can put multiple bullets into a target and they can still kill you. Do police over react sometimes? Of course. If you have reached the point of actually firing a weapon at an individual you don't pause in between each individual shot to wait and see if you have done enough. Each shooting is different. If you think cops are leaving their houses with the intent or hopes of shooting and killing someone then you must not know any cops. They just want to make it home at the end of their shift.

<comment><USER13> Surrounding a suspect who brought a knife to a gun fight does not put one in substantial lethal danger.

And there is a pattern that other countries don't feel obliged to repeat.

<comment><USER12> A person with a knife and intent is just a lethal as someone with a gun. It only takes a second or two for someone to cover 20ft and give you a deadly wound.

<comment><USER14> >A person with a knife and intent is just a lethal as someone with a gun

Then why do the police need guns? Shouldn't knives be sufficient?

<comment><USER12> >Then why do the police need guns? Shouldn't knives be sufficient?

Sure, if your plan is to only deal with threats that are < 20ft away and can be handled with a knife.

I never said the person with the knife would survive. They may very well get killed. Who cares if he managed to slice open your arm or neck and you bleed to death anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Their point about police training seems quite valid (page 5).

While there is federal assistance for police departments to buy military surplus equipment, there's very little assistance (outside of anti-terrorist funding) for improved and lengthened general training (e.g. de-escalation of force, averting the need for force, etc).

This results in some states and cities having well trained professional police, whereas others receive minimum training and are then expected to learn "on the job." For example California police officers are now receiving better training on handling the mentally ill, something a rural police officer in another state is unlikely to receive.

This is both unfair to the public and police officers alike. Unfortunately getting people to pay for things can be challenging.

<comment><USER16> Yes, and it becomes even more politically difficult to request more funding for police departments when activists paint all police with the same brush and sometimes want to literally abolish the police.

<comment><USER15> I don't see how? Both police and police activists want better training, police to keep themselves safe, and activists to reduce the prevalence of incidents. It is a win/win politically.

Now getting people to pay higher taxes to fund it? That's the real challenge.

<comment><USER16> I think that most activists want those things. Some activists are like the person in this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjIEZf8Skx4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjIEZf8Skx4)

<comment><USER15> It isn't reasonable to define an entire group by their biggest extremists. I've read some pretty outlandish things by upset police officers too, but just like this, I don't think it is a reflection of the majority's opinion on the topic.

<comment><USER16> There are activists that think that more resources given to the police will be used by the police (a mechanism of oppression) to oppress minorities and underprivileged groups even more. This is not a fringe belief. Many people with these beliefs vote, are very active in social movements, organize protests, and steer the conversations around viral events. If people with these beliefs are leading a movement and having an impact, it is entirely reasonable to confront these beliefs and take them seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A key problem is that police forces have effectively no incentive to avoid negligent use of force, in that any resulting lawsuits are paid for by the taxpayers.

I propose that police forces must be self-insured, with their pension fund backing the policy.

<comment><USER18> The problems are (1) that they get a special definition of "negligent" and "force" than the rest of us, and (2) that they and prosecutors cover up malfeasance (the blue line); not that the stakes aren't high enough if they _are_ found guilty.

Raising the stakes for a group that already protects its own just increases its incentive to cover up malfeasance.

<comment><USER19> > (2) that they and prosecutors cover up malfeasance (the blue line);

What's needed is something more systemic: abolish prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors will then have no choice but to pursue these cases or face prosecution themselves.

It also creates incentives to repeal old or broken laws that are used only as leverage against otherwise law abiding citizens.

It's a dramatic change, no doubt, but there's a lot to be said for it.

<comment><USER18> We simply don't have the prosecutors to litigate every case of lawbreaking; there's a reason discretion exists, and it's not to be nice. And dramatic changes don't happen overnight. We start with the system we've got and try to work towards something more fair in little steps.

<comment><USER19> > We simply don't have the prosecutors to litigate every case of lawbreaking

Exactly, and that's part of the problem isn't it? You can address this either by hiring more litigators, or _reduce illegality to what 's truly essential_.

The point I'm trying to make is that eliminating prosecutorial discretion creates a different set of incentives whereby the law must be understandable by mere mortals, and eliminates incentives for abuse (the blue line).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Anecdotally, most people I know don't go out of their way to interact with police, so when police come into the picture it's usually not for something good. Further, because it's not for something good, that makes the situation more tense and incongruous between parties involved. People try to actively avoid police and not deal with them. If most interactions are negative, this makes conflict resolution difficult if the sentiment towards one party is inherently distasteful. This might be a bad metaphor, but it's kinda like how people don't use customer service when they don't have a problem. If police want to be guardians of a community, it requires putting in time to listen to and understand the community, and it also requires the community be cognizant of their interactions with police. Like with customer service for any party involved, being shitty usually doesn't make things go smoother.

With that being said, I think police could do a better job of being helpful and approachable. In the times police are actually needed, such as a car accident or something being stolen, adding a bit more effort would go towards establishing a better impression among the public. Further, changing the structure of police incentives could also help, where they should be rewarded and recognized for the positive outcomes created in the community, and not the number of tickets written to bring $X dollars into the station.

<comment><USER21> These are anecdotes from Waterloo in Canada, but my two recent voluntary interactions with law enforcement were both neutral-to-negative:

First was stopping to ask a cop idling in a parking lot if they'd considered more enforcement of the new yield-to-pedestrians law at a nearby intersection/roundabout. Cars consistently run through the pedestrian crosswalks while people are in them (I have many videos of this), which is supposed to be a $1000 fine, but I've never seen any enforcement of it, or heard of anyone getting such a ticket. She basically said that they don't have time for that and would need more funding to be able to do proactive enforcement. Although she was polite and took the time to speak to me, I was disappointed at the lack of interest in something I see as a critical issue impacting safety and walkability in the community.

Second was a case where I'd witnessed what looked like a bike theft in progress at the side of the road, and then a moment later realised there was a police car half a block behind me. I pulled over and waved vigorously to flag him down, but I believe he was looking at his console (it's not clear in the video due to windshield glare) and cruised by without stopping. Either that or he saw and ignored me, which is probably worse.

Obviously both were fine in the sense that I wasn't yelled at or shot, but neither experience gave me warm fuzzies either.

<comment><USER22> Police in cars are not just driving idly around most of the time. There's always something they are being dispatched to investigate (not always with lights/sirens). It's not that unusual that you weren't able to flag the car down.

I witnessed a hit-and-run in Chicago, tried to flag down a cop that passed by less than a minute later, he did stop for a second but said he was on another call and to call 911 to report it.

<comment><USER23> _There 's always something they are being dispatched to investigate_

That's one of the problems right there. In America the cops' mission is to catch something, criminals, speeders or undesirables, and even their vehicles are camoflaged. In normal countries the mission of police is to keep the peace, and police vehicles and uniforms are designed to be visible.

<comment><USER22> Most police dispatches are in response to a call for help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> They need help with data collection on which minority group is subject to which type of policing / force.

Copy/paste finding statement from executive summary:

==

Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force. The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups.

Lack of training and lack of funding for training leave officers and the public at risk. Critical training areas include tactical training, de- escalation techniques, understanding cultural differences and anti-bias mechanisms, as well as strategies for encounters with individuals with physical and mental disabilities.

Repeated and highly publicized incidents of police use of force against persons of color and people with disabilities, combined with a lack of accurate data, lack of transparency about policies and practices in place governing use of force, and lack of accountability for noncompliance foster a perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe.

==

</comment><comment><USER25> There should be some kind of cooling-off period between when these can hit the front page and when the comments begin, proportional to the length of the document. This one is 200 pages, so the first useful comment on this report will appear tomorrow at the earliest.

The only conclusion we can draw right now is that some software company has an exclusive contract to provide the government with PDF export applications that do not generate hyperlinked tables of contents, and that publishing such a document is in fact a crime against the people.

</comment><comment><USER26> A very nice anecdote from the article concerning community policing:

 _A retired police officer described to me his actions when patrolling a neighborhood. After muster, he would drive his unit to an urban park in his district and start picking up trash. The residents got to know him from this and other actions. He would when time permitted play a game of horse with the kids on the basketball court or engage a dad who was at the park with his kids who might be having a beer. Interestingly, under "broken windows" theory of policing the dad would be cited for open container or taken to jail. However, this officer thought it was a good thing the dad was with the kids spending time in the park and not creating a problem. He also engaged the basketball kids. Over time he interacted this way with many citizens in his patrol area. As a result, he not only gained trust and respect from the citizens, he also gained great sources of information._

 _However, there was no department consistency in this policy. The next officer on duty may have cited the dad or ignored the kids and merely patrolled in his /her prowler._

Such a different conception of policing than most are used to.

<comment><USER15> It would be nice if the US adopted the Peelian principles/Nine principles of policing[0] written by Sir Robert Peel in 1829:

1) To deter crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2) To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3) To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4) To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5) To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7) To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8) To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9) To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Seems like US policing as a culture is slowly learning that these aren't optional, but required to effectively police a large diverse set of peoples.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've only taken a brief glance at this report, so I apologize if my issue I'm about to bring up is already addressed within.

It seems that this report is falling into the common trap of 'Officer deaths are down, the job must be safer'. Officer training has increased in the last 20 years, as has protective equipment, and life saving measures.

Page 38 states "Further, the data presented on Chart 5 (which includes the average number of police fatalities due to shootings, stabbings, assaults, bombings, and vehicular assaults) suggest that intentional attacks against law enforcement are at historically low levels.200"

The FBI's statistics[1] report that in 2017, 60,000 officer were 'assaulted'. 2677 were assaulted by firearm, and over 267 of them were injured.[2]

Quite simply, the most thorough and definitive source of attacks against law enforcement officers is not used to measure attacks against law enforcement officers, instead we are simply measuring deaths. Safety is a difficult thing to measure. If a pilot with 5,000 hours of flight time has crashed 4 small charter air planes with 0 deaths, is he safer than the pilot who has 2,000 hours of flight time with 0 crashes?

What we can measure is things like 'Felonious assaults' and 'Injuries per weapon type'. Which we have measured, but people keep ignoring in reports like this. Reports and reviews such as this usccr report are important, but we need to look at the situation at hand accurately if we want to address it properly

[1][https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017](https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017) [2][https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/tables/table-85.xls](https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/tables/table-85.xls)

<comment><USER28> While I don't disagree with your broader point, in several states, all assaults on law enforcement officers are felonious.[1], so felonious assault isn't a meaningful statistic (or, at least not separate from lesser assault).

So, police stop you in the street for whatever reason, you brush by them, and bang, you're charged with felony assault.

1 - [https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/secti...](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-57/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Even if police get extra training on deescalation, they have no incentive to apply it as there are virtually no repercussions for using force to resolve every situation. You can be arrested for no other crime than resisting arrest, police have almost godlike powers in the states and are actively protected by those meant to regulate them such as their fellow officers, prosecutors, courts and leadership. If they are caught egregiously violating civil rights, the taxpayers have to pay a fine for the officers who then return to work none the worse. Legally police officers don't even have to know the laws they are enforcing with courts having ruled that if an officer arrests you for something even if you weren't breaking the law their wrong assumption of the law trumps your 4th amendment rights.

A police officer can shoot an unarmed innocent civilian in a swoop and swat and receive zero repercussions essentially turning swat teams into assassination teams on call. In my personal opinion, every accusation of police misconduct should be fully investigated by the FBI and if laws are found to have been broken then federal charges are brought and if found guilty, the officers right to be a police officer is permanently removed in much the same way people with felony's are not allowed to serve in the FBI or own a weapon. If an officer kills someone who was "reaching for their waistband" and that person is found to not have been armed, instant manslaughter charges. If officers are found to have known about a violation and protected their fellow officer even if just through their silence, they should be charged with obstruction of justice or a similar crime. Until police officers are held at the very least to the standards of their fellow citizens, things will never improve.

I have seen officers off duty that are wasted pile into civilian cars and speed off then throw zoom past on duty officers who laugh and let them continue on their way. Luckily no one was killed. All of those officers should have had their badges trashed, especially those on active duty.

I respect the police, they have to deal with the worst humanity has to offer and they charge into places everyone else is running from. Many of them are good people. They cannot be given carte blanche to rough people up, or kill them. They also cannot be allowed to essentially run state sanctioned gangs.

</comment><comment><USER30> The core of this report is intellectually the hardest pill to swallow to both sides: there's not enough data. Unfortunately, human beings are highly uncomfortable acknowledging that they don't know something, our thinking is not used to this. So, instead, both sides will continue to quote selective statistics and anecdotes that prove that they're right and the others are wrong, and will ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

</comment><comment><USER31> _The "black-on-black" crime narrative as an explanation for police excessive use of force disregards the structural and historical issues that formed these neighborhoods, as well as the social and economic factors that currently sustain them. Paul Butler explains that the violence in black communities is a symptom of historic discrimination, brutal policing practices, and mass incarceration. Thus, if we want to decrease "black-on-black crime" we first need to address the systemic issues that maintain it._

This passage starts by discussing an explanation for police excessive use of force and ends by discussing an explanation for crime within the black community.

It seems like the authors are saying that we can't use crime within the black community to explain police brutality until (unless? because?) we use systemic issues to explain this crime. This seems fuzzy. It's likely that black-on- black crime is a symptom of something; but that doesn't prevent it from having symptoms, too.

</comment><comment><USER16> We need a different department in each state tasked with investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officers and prosecutors suspected of crime, a department that is completely separate from the rest of the normal law enforcement departments. It's a founding principle of the United States that institutions will not keep themselves in check, they instead require another institution to keep them in check (checks and balances). It's time to start applying that to law enforcement misconduct investigations and prosecution. This means that police officers won't have to go easy on their coworkers suspected of crime (so that their other coworkers won't ostracize them) and prosecutors won't have to turn a blind eye towards police misconduct (for fear of poisoning the relationship with a police department) since it won't be their job anymore.

Edit: if you disagree, say why.

<comment><USER32> You are most likely getting down voted because your suggestion is already policy and law in most(if not all) states. Applied in different ways and at different levels. For example local police(city/county) critical incidents are investigated by the state level agency, and a state agency CI would be investigated by either the FBI or neighboring state agency.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for the info!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Better tech could solve some issues having some Boston dynamics based "partner" would prob solve issue of police officers overreacting in what they perceive as dangerous situations.

<comment><USER34> Developing the technology to automatically police an area seems like a dramatically bad idea. It would make it far easier for a wealthy elite to control territory without the accountability of needing to prevent their police/soldiers from joining the side of protestors.

I'd rather live in a world where the rulers need the begrudging consent of a large number of people, for the reasons explained in The Dictator's Handbook or in this CGP Grey video [https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs)

<comment><USER33> I am not suggesting the autonomous AI robot version more like approach stopped vehicle and take transmit info remotely to the officer at a safe distance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > Police officers are vitally important to the co mmunities they serve.

I thought their job was "to enforce the law?"

</comment><comment><USER36> If this document tries to extract "modern policing practices" from American policing practices, I doubt there is anything to learn.</comment>


The 5K, Not the Marathon, Is the Ideal Race - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5k-not-the-marathon-is-the-ideal-race/ <comment><USER2> They are all good and all will help improve each other's time. I have only done 5Ks but I have been increasing mileage and plan to run a half for the first time. I run almost half marathon distance (8-10 miles) just to train for my 5K pace.

I am sure if I stay hooked on the sport I will eventually do a full one and 5ks will seem boring. Hell, a 18-22 min 5k workout can get really boring quick.</comment>


Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wanting-kids-is-entirely-normal/262367/ <comment><USER3> Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out?

Where I live there is some pressure to give your kid to kindergarden at age one (three used to be normal). We ended up giving our kid to kindergarden at age two, because we somehow convinced ourselves it would be good for his social development.

But the overall feeling is: he is disappearing from our lives way too fast. Now he is in kindergarden most of the time (except afternoons and weekends). Then it will be school, and today's kids seem to be pretty stressed out with that. After school kids tend to move out, we are lucky if he even stays in the same city or country.

I think if you don't enjoy your kids, there tend to be options. Giving them up for adoption would be the most radical, before that there is kindergarden and boarding schools (admittedly they cost money).

I get that not everybody enjoys their kids, but I still feel sorry for those people. For me it is the best thing that ever happened to me. It makes me angry that society takes it for granted that as a normal dad I would not even see my kid much during the week, because I would be working in an office.

Also for all those mums longing to work, I wonder what jobs do they have? In my personal biased opinion, most jobs suck. Perhaps they just imagine work life to be much more glorious than it really is?

If what this article said is true and many people are so eager to give up their kids, I actually think the state should make that possible. Must be hell to grow up with parents who hate you.

<comment><USER4> _Maybe the notion of "total motherhood" is the problem? If those mums wouldn't feel the need to "hover" above their kids every second, perhaps they would be less stressed out?_

This is the thesis of Bryan Caplan.

He has gathered a lot of evidence (mainly from twin studies) suggesting that the specific details of how you raise your kids don't matter much [1] - <USER2> kids will turn out to be the average of their parents + regression to the mean.

I.e., by age 25, the children of Amy Chua and slacker dad will turn out the same, regardless of whether Chua or slacker gets their way.

WSJ article: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870428950457531...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313201221533826.html)

Book: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0465028616&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20)

[1] Within the bounds of non-abusive middle class first-world parents. As one example, if both parents are religious, the child is likely to be religious. The only factor the parents have significant influence over is Lutheran vs Catholic.

<comment><USER3> I've heard about that, even own the book but didn't read very far yet. I remain skeptic. Maybe it holds for "standard parenting techniques", but I am more interested in for example the approach of László Polgár <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r>

He raised 3 kids to become chess grandmasters - and he announced he would do that before they were born. I don't think he was abusive either.

Somehow nobody really wants to talk about that, it is weird. Perhaps it scares people to think that they might be responsible for not making their kids brilliant. And the elite might have an interest in not letting the secret out - somebody has to do the slavery jobs in society, after all. Yeah it is a bit paranoid, but I have become a bit cynical about the setup of our society. Actually it doesn't even have to be an elite trying to hold us down, I think research has shown that people are most happy if other people are not better off than they are, so people are always trying to hold each other down.

Of course I wouldn't condone methods like the tiger mum (I think she is basically a criminal), but I don't think Polgar was abusive, for example.

I guess if you can influence if your kid is Lutheran or Catholic, there are also other things that might have a bigger impact (even Catholic vs Lutheran might make a big difference, I don't really know? What with different work ethics?). Lutheran vs Catholic or "technical vs liberal arts" and so on?

Edit: I discovered Polgar through the book "Bounce" which also talks about other cases for deliberately creating gifted kids [http://www.amazon.de/Bounce-myth-talent-power- practice/dp/00...](http://www.amazon.de/Bounce-myth-talent-power- practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1353940584&sr=8-3)

<comment><USER4> Caplan's empirical results certainly don't rule out effects from extremely non-standard (e.g., Polgar) parenting techniques. Then again, the anecdotal results of the Polgar family are also quite consistent with his thesis.

Laszlo Polgar and his wife are both obsessively ambitious and quite intelligent, and Laszlo even obsesses about chess. Caplan's thesis suggests that if raised by others, the Polgar girls might merely have picked up poker or math rather than chess.

If I recall Caplan's book correctly, "technical vs liberal arts" is suggested by twin studies to be primarily genetically determined. The separately raised twin of a civil engineer is far more likely to be an electrical engineer than to work in HR, for example.

As for Lutheran vs Catholic, it's certainly extremely important - if your kids get it wrong, they will be tortured in hell forever.

<comment><USER3> The interesting thing about Polgar is that he announced he would raise gifted kids before he even had them - he didn't even have a wife then, instead he looked for a wife willing to do the experiment. He wasn't obsessed about chess, he just picked it because it was easy to measure success. He then studied it himself so that he could teach his kids.

Sure, it is still an anecdote, but he repeated it three times with his children. It seems incredibly lucky if all of his children just happened to be super-gifted and would have become prodigies in any discipline just because of their genes, and him knowing they would be like that before they were born.

<comment><USER5> This doesn't dispute what the parent said though: Polgar is obviously going to be selecting for intelligence when choosing a spouse.

<comment><USER3> OK, true, but not every intelligent child becomes brilliant in something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Having a kid is like changing the difficulty level of life from "Normal" to "Hardcore". Unlike video games, there is no switching back.

So be sure you are committed and finished with playing on the "Normal" setting. You'll probably want to have high stats in Maturity, Communication and Patience. Oh, and your relationship is going to lose HP.

</comment><comment><USER7> The article title is off--the article seems to focus more on a woman not wanting to be domestic as being totally normal, but doing or being so is not accepted in American society.

They miss the opposite stigma, which I've noticed--being a young mother who wants to be domestic is often pooh poohed on.

<comment><USER8> It's way off. If not wanting kids was the norm, we'd die out pretty quickly (feel free to disagree if you have stats, author!).

The author (editor?) of the headline is mistaking "normal" for "acceptable".

<comment><USER9> >> _It's way off. If not wanting kids was the norm, we'd die out pretty quickly (feel free to disagree if you have stats, author!)._

If 60% of women don't want kids, but the remaining 40% all have at least three each, population would still grow.

Anyway, I think you're discussing semantics here. Saying something is 'normal' does not necessarily imply the converse is 'abnormal'. In general 'normal' does not mean 'the norm' or 'according to what the majority of people think', just that it's not completely crazy to think in a certain way.

I definitely consider not wanting to have kids to be normal, no less than wanting to have them. There are very good reasons for deciding you don't want to have kids, maybe even more so that the opposite. In fact, most reasons for wanting to have kids are pretty egocentric if you ask me, and the number of kids growing up under terrible circumstances kind of seems to confirm that.

<comment><USER10> I think your math is off.

Imagine that you have a population of 200 humans (100 male, 100 female). Only 40% of the women want kids, which, in this case, means that 40 women want kids. They each have three kids, for a total of 120 kids produced by the population of 200 adults. I don't think that this would lead to population growth.

<comment><USER9> You're right, unless you would somehow ensure that of the 3 kids every mother has, 2.5 are female ;-)

Anyway, looking at the worlds' population right now, I don't think we have to be afraid mankind will go extinct anytime soon because not enough children are born.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was intrigued by the opening paragraphs up until she got to:

"Because no matter how many different kinds of public images women see of themselves, they're still limited. They're still largely white, straight upper-middle-class depictions, and they all still identify women as mothers or non-mothers.

American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother. It goes against everything we've been taught to think about women and how desperately they want babies. If we're to believe the media and pop culture, women -- even teen girls -- are forever desperate for a baby. It's our greatest desire. "

You cannot assert things like and not provide evidence. This is a gargantuan statement about society that is left totally unsupported. I think this is a very bad habit of people in the humanities and it needs to go away before I take this kind of criticism seriously.

<comment><USER12> I can't even count on one hand conversations in the past 6 months I've had with co-workers and friends in which I've had to explain why I don't want kids and "Well.. wait, what are you going to DO with your life then?!" One of these co-workers sits near me and goes off almost every day about how wonderful his are and how everyone should have them. The other day, he even tried convincing another colleague of having her own even though she was averse. The whole thing was awkward.

I had a high school science teacher that told me "we all feel that way when we're young, but just wait until you're older." This can totally be the case, but for me it's a lot more than that.

I've heard countless arguments that children are the only thing that bring meaning to one's life. I've been told that I just won't understand until I have one. Those sentiments are echoed throughout this thread and every other thread about children. Look at the one about 60% of startup founders having children and wives - can't we take away that the reason most people have children is simply because we grow up being told that's what you're supposed to do?

This may seem trivial on the outset, but hearing it day after day is defeating - particularly when there's general societal pressure on top of it. When people ask me why I made this decision, I try to keep it brief and just tell them I'm devoted to my career. Quite frankly, I shouldn't need an excuse; I'm of the mindset that too many unqualified people are having children and those children are being tossed by the wayside as they grow up in crummy neighborhoods or bloated classrooms.

In my [somewhat extremist] view, I wish we had better indicators of potential health concerns and weren't afraid of telling people with financial issues that they need to get on track before they're allowed to reproduce; if you couldn't get approved for a loan that would cover the first year or two (or more) of childcare, how do you think you actually will? I know that's not a popular opinion, but having grown up in a home where everything was put onto credit cards that were deliberately timed to line up with bankruptcy claims, and knowing what kind of life that is, that's my take on it.

Worse, there are a lot of women that don't realize until it is too late that they probably weren't cut out for it and the implications it has on their aspirations and careers. Some women feel so detached from their newborns that they become dissociative. Some resort to Facebook, while others resort to much more unfortunate (and long-term) solutions.

Anyhow, those of us in the childfree mindset absolutely exist (and in higher numbers more recently), but for the sake of our sanities we don't talk about it unless we want an onslaught of people telling us how we should actually feel and live our lives.

<comment><USER13> > _"we don't talk about it"_

I wish this was true. Most of the "childfree" people I know are really obnoxious and in-your-face about it.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense. Kids are expensive. Some people aren't cut out for parenting. Some people just have other priorities. And it's obnoxious to have people telling you "you should have kids" when you've chosen not to.

That said, the argument that you "just won't understand until [you] have one" is entirely correct. It's like having never been sexually active. You can choose to be celibate or childfree, but you don't and can't really know what it's like on the other side of the line. (It is, unfortunately, a decision it's impossible to make in a truly "informed" manner -- you can only truly understand after making the decision.)

<comment><USER12> > I wish this was true. Most of the "childfree" people I know are really > obnoxious and in-your-face about it.

Interesting, where do you live? I have yet to find anyone else in my social circles that has made this decision, nor have I heard anyone outside of the internet take this stance in my presence, especially naggingly so.

<comment><USER13> > _"where do you live?"_

Denver, CO. The most obnoxious of the bunch is an old friend from church. It's like "childfree" is a religion for her.

Admittedly, with such a small sample size, I can't really say whether their attitude or yours is more common. But I do hope your approach prevails.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a strong association of a desire to have children with good times. Plenty. Safety. Relief. An aversion to children is a sign of bad times. Turmoil. War.

It's part of our stories and our mythologies. The heros return from war bringing safety and bounty. Pair up and rase children. I suspect this is part of our biology.

How much of this has always been. How much of it is a result of our present world.

<comment><USER15> Biologically speaking, it's logical to not want to bring children into a harsh world incapable of nurturing them. It could be an evolutionary or rational feedback.

I think much of this has always been, and this is largely a case of "if you go looking for something, you'll find it." Also, they're pushing a book. Funny how that works.

<comment><USER16> There is a fairly strong connection between poverty, stress and high reproductive rates.

The baby boomer generation is largely the product of WWII. The birth rate of Palestian's is significantly higher than that of the Israeli population. Birth rates in very poor countries are almost always significantly higher than in developed wealthy countries. (IANAE :)

<comment><USER3> But does that correlation still hold in developed countries? I guess reasons to have more kids in poor countries is that they'll help you with your work and take care of you when you are old. Besides, some of them are going to die prematurely, so you need to create more to have some successes. The cost for having a kid might be low. In developed countries things are pretty much turned on their heads in that respect?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My wife is pregnant with our first child and here is what we are going through right now:

\- Financial budgeting and planning. Our expenses are going to go up by about $1500 (NYC metropolitan area)

\- Everyday, we struggle through talking about what we need to buy for the baby, should we do this, should we do that ?

\- Are we going to be good parents ? Will our kid turn out ok ?

\- We are not going to have any more time for ourselves. Forget those dinner and movie nights out. Forget about socializing outside especially for the first few months ?

\- Will I get time to work on my side projects etc. at all ? It is so hard right now and with the baby, it might be even more difficult.

Now, if I had to choose between not having a child so that all the above issues disappear OR having a child, I would go for the child in a heartbeat. The point is that you can always justify why not to want/have kids, but I strongly believe (my opinion) that you will be missing out on one of the greatest gifts of god if you don't have them i.e. children. Just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER18> As the father of an almost 2-year-old:

Baby spending is a gaseous thing. It expands to fill the size of your budget.

All a baby needs is onesies, diapers, food, some blankets and a place to sleep. A car-seat and a stroller for going out (plus some blankets, etc for keeping warm). Anything else is gravy.

The kid will be fine. Quit worrying.

You will have to ease back into outside social engagements but you will sort things out.

Young children sleep a lot.

<comment><USER19> Agree with all of this as I have experienced it all myself in the last year.

Things worked out _so_ much better than I imagined that I'm starting to think couples with the "kids ruin everything" attitude were actually looking for an excuse to disengage socially.

I would also suggest:

\- Get the baby used to going out - friends' houses, restaurants. A bottle with a slow nipple buys you a lot of time if the baby starts fussing in a restaurant. \- Find a good babysitter \- When going out, do more planning than usual to make sure you have an awesome time

That last bit has made a huge difference. By treating your entertainment time as precious, the experiences you have are so much more fun and memorable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Don't let the naysayers discourage you. Having and raising kids is one of the most wonderful experiences you can have in your life. yes, it is incredibly difficult, painful at times. But it is all worth it.

I strongly believe that if kids turn out bad, their parents should be blamed for the _most_ part if not all.

<comment><USER20> The article clearly shows that some people don't want to have children or have found having children to not be as satisfying as you did. We can't make decisions for others, and perpetuating messages and depictions of child raising as fulfilling is really misleading.

<comment><USER3> So propaganda against children is OK, but for children is not? If people say what makes them happy, what is wrong with that? It doesn't imply that it would work for everyone, but it implies that it might work for some other people, too.

Why don't those unhappy parents give up their kids for adoption?

<comment><USER20> There's nothing wrong with having children and having that experience be a great one. However, that kind of story is the dominant narrative in US society and people deserve to hear alternative points of view and experience for those where it didn't turn out OK or as a positive experience. Those kinds of stories and experiences don't get a lot of exposure, esp. in regards to media representation and cultural norms.

> Why don't those unhappy parents give up their kids for adoption?

The article went over this, as there are a wide variety of reasons someone has a child, planned or not. Some people may have children that they were forced to, or may find that the life they imagined having with children never materialized and that they do not want to continue being a parent. Also, cultural norms and representations of parenthood and expectations of how to interact with children heavily influence the perception of being a parent, so when these norms leave out the experience of people who regret or are not happy with being a parent, we are misleading people. Adoption and foster care systems are not a perfect solution, it would be better to provide more information and experiences for people to help them evaluate whether or not a child would be for them.

<comment><USER3> In general I suppose it is bad if people can't be honest with their feelings. As one extreme example, I think post-pregnancy depression is actually quite common and can even drive mothers to suicide. Since they can not talk about it because they are supposed to be happy, they often don't get proper treatment.

As for helping people evaluate, that seems tricky. How could you simulate the experience of having kids? I guess most people just extrapolate from what they see around them and what they experienced in their own families. And on the case of unwanted pregnancies it wouldn't help anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think it's less frowned upon here in Europe.

Who want's to miss 10-15 years of her life anyway ? All the personal projects, travels, parties, etc.

As the article says, we spend most of our live trying to avoid it. So now, to have a child is an active decision. You go out of your way, it doesn't just happen. So it must be a project that you should be able to justify, a rational decision. Show me your decision grid, advantages/drawbacks, etc.

No really, what is the point at the individual level ? (I understand the point at the species level, but we don't act at the species level).

Pushing another human in an already overcrowded planet ? Forcing him to pay for you when you will be old ? The best thing you can do for your child is not having it.

<comment><USER22> It's less frowned upon in wealthy societies in general. Here in London the average age for first time mothers is deep into their 30s. It is about time when you've had your long travels around the world, and years of parties. I don't think the expectation here exists that young people are going to look after old people, unlike the developing world.

<comment><USER21> About young people looking after the old; Here in France it's not an expectation, it's the law.

My grand mother needs to go to a retirement home, her retirement pension doesn't cover the full cost. My mother and I are required by law to cover the rest (at least that part that is not paid for by the public health system).

I'll gladly do it, but who am I to impose that to another person ?

<comment><USER23> > _I'll gladly do it, but who am I to impose that to another person ?_

The one that gave the same "other person" his life, and 18 years of house, food, education and care?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yeah, then you have them. And it's awesome and you wonder why you didn't do it sooner.

<comment><USER25> Or you have them and spend the next thirty years regretting it. Which almost no-one will publicly admit, due to the public stigma, and the obvious pain it would cause their children. This is I think the pain point of this article. I personally know two people who wish they had never had children, but they would never come out and say that publicly.

<comment><USER26> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686219/I-am- bitterly...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686219/I-am-bitterly- bitterly-disappointed-retired-naval-officers-email-to-children-in-full.html)

<comment><USER3> Probably a parody? But anyway, I think a big issue is that a lot of parents seem to think children are something like puppets which they can mend to their liking (and that have to adore them no matter what). Of course such expectations will end in disappointment, because children are individuals with their own minds.

<comment><USER26> Actually no, it's been pretty big in the British papers. It's sparked a fairly large national discussion on various child rearing straegies.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234571/Cant- boast-Y...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234571/Cant-boast-You- Son-submarine-commanders-broadside-father-told-children-You-copulation-driven- kids-let-down.html)

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686721/Daughter- defe...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9686721/Daughter-defends- former-submarine-captain-who-told-children-he-was-bitterly-disappointed-in- them.html)

<comment><USER3> That seems fairly typical: parents who are convinced they did everything right, and never realize they are emotional train wrecks. So they can blame it all on the children.

Whatever - it is a complex issue, having children is not like buying a new TV. You can not predict all the issues that will arise and the emotions they will evoke. So I guess it would be wrong to propose a simple formula for child rearing, as it wouldn't apply universally to all kids.

But as I said, if you have specific expectations as to what your kids turn out to be, it is probably a recipe for disaster...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Looking at humans as domesticated apes: We are not fixed in being pair bounding or tournament species. But the current western culture is pair bounding.

Its typical for pair bounding domesticated apes, that the poor and uneducated breed like rats, in the hope that one of the 9 children survives and can feed me, when I'm a grandpa. The more wealth and education someone has, the less children they have, because it makes sense to have fewer children and invest more into them.

Till a culture runs into the problem that the average mother has less than two children. This had been a problem for every high culture, regardless if we talk about Greeks, Romans, or later high cultures. And US is not yet at this point, because CIA tells me 2.06 children per mother, while Germany has 1.41 children per mother.

The solution would be to get rid of the pair bounding culture, because domesticated tournament apes have exactly the opposite children per mother distribution. Rich man have several women, and those have several children. Poor man have no women, and no children.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Over 60 percent of the children studied were reported as planned, almost 30 percent were unplanned ("mistimed"), and 10 percent were unequivocally "unwanted." The results of Barber's research showed that the children who were unintended ... got fewer parental resources than those children who were intended. Basically, children who were unplanned didn't get as much emotional and cognitive support as children who were planned.... Across the board, children who were wanted got more from their parents than children who weren't. Children who were unplanned were also subject to harsher parenting and more punitive measures than a sibling who was intended."

Wonder if this effect on children is stronger or weaker than the oft-GOP- touted effect that raising a child with a mother and a father is the best way to do so -- i.e. how do planned-for children raised by single mothers compare to unplanned children raised by both fathers and mothers?

</comment><comment><USER29> > Some cited the boredom of stay-at-home momism. Many complained of partners > who didn't shoulder their share of child care responsibilities.

I don't have kids yet, but when and if that will happen I'll try to make sure that the mother of my kids won't ruin her career and her sense of self-worth by becoming a stay-at-home-mother. That's how I grew up, with both my parents having full-time jobs, if it was good enough for me as a kid seeing my parents happy and all I hope it will be good enough for my children.

<comment><USER3> I actually would prefer a stay-at-home mom. The wife's job is creating a lot of stress. Women who work tend to be in a foul mood (just my experience anyway).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> You can't force someone to love the other. Even a child.

</comment><comment><USER31> what you're looking at here is the death throes of a civilization. Abortion on demand, free contraception, and a radicalized group that believe motherhood is slavery. But of course, what do I know? I'm 'only a man'.

<comment><USER24> I've upvoted you, because I tend to agree. But you really didn't do yourself any favours by that last line: "But of course, what do I know? I'm 'only a man'."

<comment><USER31> thanks for the upvote - I knew I was going to get slings and arrows for my views, so I added the ending to short-circuit some of the backlash.</comment></comment></comment>


Keynote: Open-Source and Startup Business Models – Priyanka Sharma, Gitlab - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT_9vWLWs_A <comment><AUTHOR> Here is a very related video from Sid, the co-founder: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZupYzr_Zg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZupYzr_Zg)</comment>


A City Is Not a Tree (1965) - <AUTHOR> http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/cityisnotatree.html <comment><AUTHOR> Some of the images are broken in the linked essay, but this PDF version has the missing images: [http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexan...](http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp- content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexander-A-city-is-not-a-tree.pdf)</comment>